In 3²⁰ 5⁴² 24²⁴2³ on the other hand, it is questionable whether we are to read the names together so as to yield the compound Christ Jesus,’ which in that case meets us here for the first time in the New Testament, or are to take Christ as the predicate,— Jesus as the Christ.” The commentators seem inclined to follow the latter course.³ But in 24²⁴, where the question is about Paul, who, we know from his Epistles (1 Thess 2¹⁴ 5¹⁸, Rom passim), was accustomed, at an earlier date than this, to use the compound ‘ Christ Jesus’ freely, it seems difhicult not to read that compound.⁵ And this increases our hesitancy with reference to the two earlier passages. Paul’s familiar use of ‘ Christ Jesus’ must have had a history back of it: and it seems, therefore, natural that its employment in the primitive com- ” munity should emerge into light in such passages as we now have before us.⁶

Note: 17³ 18⁵,²⁸8 where also the two names stand in conjunction, are different: the presence of the substantive verb renders the construction of the “Christ” as predicate necessary.

Another compound designation of Jesus, which does not occur in the Gospels,⁷ meets us with some frequency in Acts—” the Lord Jesus.” This is em- “ones ployed by Luke himself in the course of the narrative (4³³ 8¹⁶ 11²⁰ 19⁵,¹³,¹7) and is also attributed to speakers whose words are reported,

—or to be more specific, to both Peter (1²¹ 15¹¹) and Paul (16³¹ 20²⁴,³⁵ 21¹³). It is even used as an address by Stephen (7⁵⁹). Indeed the fuller designation, ‘ the or ‘ our ‘ Lord Jesus Christ,’ is employed by Luke himself! (28³¹) and attributed alike to Peter (11¹), the whole body of the Apostles (15²⁶), and Paul (20²¹). In this last formula we have combined the three most usual designations of Christ, and it seems charged with the deepest reverence and affection for His person.

Of course these phrases, ‘ the Lord Jesus,’ ‘ the [our] Lord Jesus Christ,’ witness to the prevalence in the Christian community of the simpler designation ‘ Lord of Jesus, and this prevalence is otherwise copiously illustrated in Acts. As the narrative does not concern what Jesus began to do and teach while in His own person on earth, but what “ after He was received up” He did through His servants, His own person is not a figure in the narrative, subsequent to the few opening verses which tell of the period before the ascension. Accordingly outside of these verses (1⁶) there is no occasion to record words directly addressed to Jesus, except in visions (P⁵,¹⁰,¹³ gains 5¹⁵) or in prayers. (1²⁴ 7⁵⁹,⁶⁰). On all these occasions, however, He is addressed by the supreme honorific ‘ Lord,” except in 7⁵⁹, where He is addressed more fully as ‘ Lord Jesus.’ Tt is clear that this formula is employed in all cases with the profoundest reverence, and is meant to be the vehicle of the highest possible ascription. Perhaps it will be well to focus our attention upon the two or three instances in which it is employed in direct prayer to Jesus (1²⁴ 7⁹,⁶⁰), Tn these He is not merely treated as divine—for to whom but God is prayer to be addressed >—but also directly characterized as the possessor of divine powers and the exerciser of divine “functions. It is as He that knoweth the hearts of all men” that He is appealed to at 1²⁴,⁸; as the forgiver of sin at 7⁶⁰;⁴ and as the receiver of the spirits of the dying saints at 7⁵⁹. All these traits are assigned to Jesus in the Gospel narratives, where Jesus claimed authority even on earth to forgive sins (Mk 2¹⁰ ) and represents Himself as the judge before whom all were at length to stand and receive according to the deeds done in the body (Mt 25³²): where He is represented as knowing what was in men and needing not that anyone should teach Him what were the thoughts of their hearts (Mk 2⁸): and where His promise to the thief was that he should be that day with Him in Paradise (Lk 23⁴³). It can occasion no surprise, therefore, that He should be appealed to after His return to His \ glory as at once the searcher of hearts, the forgiver of sins, and the receiver of the spirits of the saints. What we learn in the meanwhile is that to the infant community the ascended Jesus was their God, whom they addressed in prayer and from whom they sought in prayer the activities which specifically belong to God. Quite naturally in these circumstances the chief narrative name for Jesus in Acts becomes the honorific the Lord,” which is employed about twice as frequently as the simple Jesus,¹⁰ and which is occasionally given more precision by taking the form of ‘ the Lord Jesus’ (4³³ 8¹⁶ 11²⁰ 19⁵,¹³,¹⁷) and even ‘ the Lord Jesus Christ (28³¹). All of these designations are placed also on the lips of actors in the history recounted. Thus Peter speaks of Jesus as ‘ the Lord in [2³⁴] 2³⁶ 11¹⁶ 12¹¹, as tithe Lord Jesus’ in 7²¹ 15¹¹, and as the Lord Jesus Christ in 11¹⁷; Paul as the Lord in 15¹⁰,¹¹,¹² 95¹⁹ af¹⁵ ias the Lord Jesus” in 16³¹ 20²⁴,³⁵ 57¹³, and as the Lord Jesus Christ in 20²¹; and others speak of Him as the Lord in 8²²,²⁴ 9¹⁷ 16¹⁵, as the l.ord Jesus’ in 7⁵⁹, and as the Lord Jesus Christ in 15²⁶. It is quite clear that ‘ the Lord is a favorite designation of Jesus in this book, and was such also in the community whose usage it reflects.¹¹ And it is equally clear 10 [247] [514] 82²5 91,10,11,15,[17],2²7,29,31,35,42² 1121,2²1,23 31,17 132,49 143.23 1535,[361,40 yg[14],[32²] 188,9,25 1920 2311,

Note: De Wette, Meyer, Wendt, Nosgen, Blass, iz loc., wish this passage to be understood as addressed to God; so also Sven Herner, Die Anwendung des Wortes κύριος im N. T., 1903, p. 17: “In the sentence, ‘ Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men (1²⁴), God is probably meant. According to 15⁸ (4²⁹) and Lk 16¹⁵ God is the searcher of hearts, and the prayer of the primitive Church recorded at 4²⁴⁻³⁰ is also addressed to God. Several exegetes, however, are of the opinion that it is directed to the Lord Christ; and the 6 κύριος ΙΪησοῦς of v. 21 can be urged in support of this.” Among the exegetes who consider it to be addressed to Christ are Bengel, Olshausen, Baumgarten, Lechler, Bisping, and van Qosterzee (see the solid statement of the last): as also Alexander, Hackett, Gloag, Barde, Felton, Rendall. Rackham prefers to leave the question undecided.

Note: Cf. Sven Herner, Die Anwendung des Wortes κύριος im N. Tp. 20: “The frequent employment of the word κύριος in Acts is that in the use of this term what is primarily expressed is the profoundest reverence on the part of the community and the highest conceivable exaltation and authority on the part of Jesus Himself. It belongs to the _ situation that it is often extremely difficult to deteramine whether by ‘ Lord Jesus or God is meant.¹² That is to say, so clearly is Jesus ‘ God to this writer and shown not merely in the cases where it refers to God, but even more where it is Christ that is spoken of. Acts loves to call Christ Lord. According to 2³⁶ God has made Jesus Lord and Christ; He is the Lord over all (10³⁶), and, therefore, He is often spoken of by the designation of Lord (220.21,3 1,05,6110,11,15,17,27 1116 [1610 1825] 202⁸ [22¹⁰,¹⁶] 23¹¹ [26¹5]). To these must be added the passages in which Christ is addressed with the term Lord’(z⁵ 75⁹,⁶⁰ 5[⁶]1¹0,13 22⁸,¹⁰,¹⁹ 26¹⁰) and a series of citations in which He is called Lord,’ but in connection with a ‘ Jesus’ or Jesus Christ (12¹ 43³ 8¹⁶ [g2⁸ 1048] 1117.20 [1410] 1511.26 1631 19518.17 2021,24,35 2113 2831). Acts speaks therefore extremely often of Christ by the designation Lord,’ even if we neglect the passages adduced at an earlier point, where decision is uncertain whether God or Christ is meant.” ¹² Cf. Sven Herner, op. cit., p. 16: “Whereas the Gospels depict the life of Jesus on earth, the narrative in Acts revolves around the Jesus exalted to the right hand of God, whom God has made Lord and Christ (2³⁶). It is He who leads to eternal life; He is the Lord of life (3¹⁵). He is the Saviour, and there is salvation in no other (4¹²). He deals out His blessings (3¹6) and pours out the Holy Spirit on be- lievers (2³³). His power is not bounded by the limits of space (26¹⁷), and His flesh shall not see corruption (2³¹). He is not only the Lord and Master according to the ordinary representation of the Gospels (cf. e.g. Mt 21³, Mk 11³, Lk 193¹ with Mt 26¹8, Mk 14¹⁴, Lk 22¹¹ and John 13¹³), but He is the Lord over all (10³6). Accordingly Acts can leave it undetermined whether certain assertions are to be made of God or Christ; a designation is employed which is common to both, and it can often not be decided whether God or Christ is meant,—indeed some- times it seems almost as if Acts had chosen a common designation just because it was unnecessary more precisely to express whether what was spoken of was to be ascribed to God or Christ. It is thus character- istic of Acts that a large number of passages occur where we cannot be those whose speech he reports that the common term ‘ Lord vibrates between the two and leaves the reader often uncertain which is intended.⁶’ The assimilation of Jesus to God thus witnessed is illustrated also in other ways. Thus, for example, in Peter’s Pentecostal sermon Jesus is conceived as sitting at the right hand of God (2³⁴) and as having been constituted both Lord and Christ,” where the conjunction is significant (2³⁶): and more explicitly still He is designated in a later discourse of the same Peter, “ Lord of all” (10³⁶), that is to say, universal sovereign, a phrase which recalls the great declaration of Rom ⁵ to the effect that He is God over all,” as indeed He who sits on the throne of God must be.¹⁴

Note: sure whether κύριος means God or Christ (1²⁴ 2⁴⁷ g¹⁴ 8²⁵,³⁹ ³¹,35,⁴2 1121,21,23,24 132,10,11,12,[44],47,48,49 143,23 735,36 114,15,32² 188,9,25 1910,2²0 2019 2114)”

That in this rich development of the conception of the Lordship of Jesus, His Messianic dignity is not iy out of mind is already apparent from the phraseology of 2³⁶.⁷ The emphasis of Peter’s preaching turns, indeed, precisely on the fact that God has made the Jesus whom 7 _the Jews crucified “both Lord and Christ.” It is thus with Acts as truly as with the Gospels the Messianic office of Jesus on which the greatest stress is laid. Naturally as Jesus is not a speaker in the narrative of Acts, His own favorite self-designation of Son of Man is here conspicuous by its absence. It occurs only a single time, when the dying Stephen declared that he saw the heavens opened and the ‘ Son of Man standing at the right hand of God (7⁵⁶). This is the only instance in the whole New Testament where this designation is employed by anyone except our Lord Himself: Stephen’s use of it seems a reflection of our Lord’s declaration, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power” (Mt 26⁶⁴ ), and is at once Stephen’s testimony to the greatness of his Lord in His divine Majesty, and a witness to the genuineness of the whole series of declarations attributed to our Lord in which He saw Himself in the Danielic vision and developed on that basis His conception of His Messiahship in its earthy humiliation and subsequent elevation to participation in the divine glory.

The great companion designation Son of God is almost as rare in Acts as the ‘ Son of Man.” This precise designation, indeed, occurs but once, where we are told that Paul immediately after his conversion began to proclaim in the synagogues of Damascus Jesus as the Son of x God (9²⁰), which is explained as meaning that he < proved Jesus to be the Christ (9²²). In his speech in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch, Paul indeed declared that by raising up Jesus God fulfilled the an- “nouncement of the second Psalm, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee” (13³³); and the risen Jesus is quoted as twice speaking of God as the Father “(1⁴,⁷), and Peter is cited as repeating one of these declarations in his Pentecostal sermon (2³³). Occasion has been taken from the circumstance that in all these three cases of allusion to the ‘ Father the term employed is the Father to suggest that it is not specifically Jesus’ Father but the general Father of spirits that is intended. To this is added the suggesjoo that in Paul’s allusion to the second Psalm it is “of the incarnation or even perhaps of the resurrection (that he is thinking as the point when the Son was be- ( gotten. The conclusion is then drawn that in Acts there is no allusion to a metaphysical Sonship of Christ.¹⁶ It must be frankly admitted that had we these ¹⁶ Cf. e.g. A. H. Blom, De Leer wan het Messiasrijk, etc., pp. 58-9, 70, 71: “We think we may conclude that the Christians as little as the Jews connected with the Son of God the conception of a divine nature; and that the ethical element in the idea of the Messiah lay more in the παῖς than in the υἱός of God”… “It attracts our attention that Jesus here and there speaks of God as the Father (Acts 1⁴,⁷), and that Peter too on one occasion made use of this designation (2³³). Seeing how that elsewhere in the N.T. the most inti- mate communion of God with men, His life for and in men, is expressed by this term, it is all the more remarkable that Jesus by speakpassages alone to consider, we might hesitate to ascribe to Acts the doctrine of a divine Messiah. But this is by no means the case, and we need only note in passing that the title of ‘ Son of God is very little in evidence in Acts either in its precise form or in its cognate modes of expression. Nevertheless, the locution ‘ the Father does not appear in the usage of it here to be without suggestion of its correlative ‘ the Son’; and Paul’s citation of the second Psalm does not seem to be without implication of a Sonship for Jesus lying deeper than either His resurrection or His incarnation.

The prevailing Messianic designation in Acts is the simple ‘ Christ,” and Luke tells us that the staple of J iy the Apostolic teaching was that Jesus cnn ast the Christ” (5⁴² 8⁵ g²² 18⁵,²⁸) and illustrates this fact by instances recorded both from Peter (2³¹,³⁶ 3¹⁸,²⁰Y:iand from Paul (17³ 26²³). The general employment of the compound names, ‘ Jesus Christ,” the Lord Jesus Christ (or “our Lord Jesus Christ’) and even ‘ Christ Jesus,’ testifies to the fixedness of the conviction that Jesus was ‘ the Christ and the close attachment of the title to His person as at least a quasi-proper name. Luke does not himself make use of any other Messianic title, except in the one instance when he tells us that Paul ing not of His but of the Father, does not lay claim by it for Himself alone to such a relation to God. And Peter follows Him in this, since he employs the term to the Jews, who did not yet believe in Christ, from which it may be inferred that this fatherlike love of God for men was not conceived as dependent on their belief in Christ, but as grounded in His nature… And if we were not arbitrary in suggesting that for the early Christians the title Servant of Jehovah was of much more ethical significance than that of Son of God,” it would seem to follow that we should not seek a rich ethical sense in the name of Father.”

on his conversion began at once to proclaim Jesus that He is the Son of God” (9²⁰). But he quotes quite a rich variety of such titles as employed by others. To Peter there is ascribed, for example, a considerable series, which, moreover, he is represented as weaving together in a most striking way, as all alike designations of the same Jesus, which bring out the several aspects of the unitary conception fulfilled in Him. Prominent among them are those which apply to Jesus the prophecies concerning the Righteous Servant of Jehovah (3¹³,¹⁴,²⁶, cf. 4²⁷,³⁰) and ‘ the Prophet like unto “Moses’ (3²²,²⁸), which are inextricably combined with “those which speak of Him as the Anointed King.⁸

In Peter’s early discourses the Servant (παῖς) of God is one of the most notable of the designations of [0 Jesus (3²³,²⁶, of. 4²⁷,³⁰); and along with Eel¹⁰ it occurs: the Holy and Righteous One (3¹⁴)⁹ which belongs to the same series of designations; and in the same context appeal is made likewise to Moses’ prophecy of a Prophet like unto himself (3²,²³);¹⁰ while to these is added further the striking title of the Prince or ‘ Author ‘ of life (3¹⁵). In other discourses Peter calls Jesus a Prince and Saviour (5³¹) and indeed even ‘ Judge of the quick and the dead (10⁴²). The composite portrait which he presents of Jesus the Messiah as he passes freely from one of these designations to another is a complex and very lofty one: what is most apparent is that he conceives Him as the focus upon which all the rays of Old Testament prophecy converge, and as exalted above all earthly limitations. A somewhat similar list of designations is placed on the lips of Paul. <lothim the Lord Jesus’ (16³¹ 20²¹,²⁴,³⁵ 21¹³) is the ZChrist (17³ 26²³), “the Holy One (13³⁵)¹¹ the “Righteous One (22¹⁴, cf. 7⁵², Stephen)¹² who has come cas a Saviour (13²³) to Israel, and who though a

Man (ἀνήρ, 17³¹) is ‘ God’s own Son (13³³), nay, in some high sense ‘ God Himself (20²⁸),—for it was by nothing else than “the blood of God that the Church was purchased.¹³

A rapid enumeration of the mere titles applied to Christ, such as we have made, fails utterly to reproduce the impression which they make on the reader as he meets them in the course of the narrative. That impression is to the effect that although the true humanity of our Lord is thoroughly appreciated (ἄνθρωπος, 5²⁸, cfm⁵⁶: (ἀνήρ, a²² yh ef Tk aa¹⁹), vet itiisithe “majesty of this man which really fills the minds of these first Christians, as they perceive in Him not merely a man of God’s appointment, representing God on earth, in whom all that they can conceive to be the source of dignity in Old Testament prophecy meets and finds its fulfillment (10⁴²,⁴³), but also something far above humanity, which can be expressed only in terms of precise deity (20²⁸).

A side-light is thrown upon the high estimate which was placed among these early Christians on Jesus’ person by the usurpation by it of the Old Testament pregnant use of the term ‘ Name.” As in the Old Testament we read continually of the Name of Jehovah” as the designation of His manifested majesty, and even of simply “” the Name used absolutely with the same high connotation, so in Acts we read of the Name of

Jesus Christ, to the exclusion of the old phrase,¹⁴ and again of simply “the Name” (5⁴¹, cf. 3 Jno 7) used absolutely of Jesus. Those who were persecuted for His sake we are told rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name” (5⁴¹, cf. 3 Jno 7).¹⁵ In the Old Testament this would have meant the Name of Jehovah: here it means the Name of Jesus.¹⁶ “The Name,” as it has been truly remarked, “had become a watchword of the faith, and is consequently used alone to express the name of Jesus, as it stood in former days for the Name of Jehovah (Lev 24¹¹).¹⁷ Nothing could more convincingly bear in upon us the position to which Jesus had been exalted in men’s thoughts than this constant tendency to substitute Him in their religious outlook for Jehovah.

---

← The Designations of Our Lord in John and Their Significance · Contents · The Corroboration of the Epistles of Paul →

Footnotes

1. This certainly cannot admit of doubt: and it is pleasant to be able to record that the evidence has been recognized as overwhelming even by Harnack: cf. his Lukas der Arzt der Verfasser des dritten Evangeliums und der Apostelgeschichte, 1906. That Harnack is unwilling to accord to Luke his true rank as an exact historian does not lessen the value of his admission of his authorship of the Gospel (including the infancy portion) that bears his name; and of the Acts, throughout. 2072 ↩

2. Harnack, in the Preface to the above-mentioned work, says: “The genuine epistles of Paul, the writings of Luke, and Eusebius’ Church History are the pillars for the knowledge of the history of the earliest Christianity.” This is true testimony: and it only remains to give to the testimony of these three pillar-witnesses its real validity to rise in our conception of early Christianity far above not only the average “critical “conception, but Harnack’s own. ↩

3. So e.g. the Revised English Version at 3²⁰ 5⁴2, and Meyer-Wendt at 320: and so also A. H. Blom, De Leer wan het Messiasrijk bij de eerste Christenen, pp. 292 and 303. On 32 Blom says: “There can be no doubt… but that Xpte7rov ησοῦν is not to be taken as one name, but that ησοῦν is the epexegetic appositive of Χριστόν, which has here its original significance of a dignity.” On the other side, cf. Gloag, Barde, Rackham at 3²⁰0, ⁵80 eg. R. V. ⁶ Paul Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus, 1902, p. 35, is among those (see note 4) who take the opposite view. He says: “This formula is a specifically Pauline one. The compound name [7500s Χριστός is found also in the other N. T. writings… But the reverse sequence meets us only in Paul. No doubt it may be possible to discover it if we wish to do so in Acts. But even in Acts 320 17³ 185.28⁸ the Χριστός, standing before’Iysode, is the predicate; 5⁴² means similarly, they preached the Messiah Jesus.’ Then only 24²⁴ is left tis ets Χριστὸν Ιησοῦν πίστεως, Even here, however, it is possible that we do not have the Pauline formula, but what is spoken of is faith in the Messiah Jesus.” ⁷In Mk 16¹⁹, Lk 243,³ it is not genuine. ↩

4. That the prayer in 7⁶⁰ is addressed to Jesus is pretty generally allowed. Cf. e.g. Sven Herner, p. 16: “We think we can maintain that in Stephen’s prayer the words, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge (79), are directed to Jesus, since the immediately preceding verse has the expression Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” “Also A. H. Blom, p. 126: “It is probable that the same person is addressed by the κύριε as was called κύριε Ϊησοῦ in v. 59.” Blom points out that it is the dominant conception of Acts that the forgiveness of sins is to be had in Christ: therefore men are baptized in His name (2³⁸ 22¹⁶), and He has been exalted to God’s right hand as a Prince and a Saviour (5³¹), and all who believe in Him receive forgiveness through His name (10⁴³); “and therefore,” he adds, “Stephen can have had Him in mind when he prayed for his foes, Lord, reckon not this sin to their charge (7⁶⁰).” ↩

5. Oixatog… And so the predicate ἅγιος must include in itself a religious and ethical sense…” ↩

6. Therefore commentators have been tempted sometimes to seek out an easy and mechanical rule of discrimination. In his Neueste Theol. Journal, iv., pp. 11-24 (cf. 11. p. sor), Gabler, e.g.,, maintained that anarthrous κύριος always is God in the N. T., while articled κύριος is always Jesus. Winer in the first and second editions of his Grammar blindly repeated this. But on investigating the matter he was soon convinced of the error, and showed in his monograph, Disputatio de sensu wvocum κύριος et ὅ; κύριος im Actis et Epistolis Apostolorum (Erlang., 1828), pp. 26, that the assumed rule did not hold good. Moses Stuart had meanwhile taken up the whole subject and printed the results of his researches in a somewhat rambling but useful paper in the first volume of the Biblical Repository (1831, Oct.), to the same effect. Dr. A. Plummer in his commentary on Luke repeats as regards that book the artificial statement of Gabler. In truth the distribution of the usage between Christ and God cannot in any book of the N. T. be determined on such grounds: and the difficulty in determining the reference is rooted ultimately in the assimilation of the two persons in the minds of the writers. Cf. Harnack, History of Dogma, 1. p. 183. ¹⁴Cf. Meyer on 2³⁶ and 10³⁶, ↩

7. Cf. e.g. A. H. Blom, De Leer wan het Messiasrijk, etc., pp. 58-9: “Christians were thoroughly convinced that the Messiah had appeared in Jesus the Nazarene. This was the main content of the preaching of the Apostles, whether they turned to the Jews (Acts 2²²⁻³⁶ 3¹³,²⁶ 4⁸⁻¹² 520-32 752 9²0 etc.), or to the Samaritans (8), or to the heathen (1084-42 1316-41). ↩

8. With respect to this intermingling of designations, cf. A. H. Blom, De Leer wan het Messiasrijk bei de eerste Christenen, 1863, p. 48: “Jt scarcely needs to be said that only the religious-minded were in a position rightly to understand Jesus, and that undoubtedly the most of those who became His followers in the first years belonged to this class. The question thus becomes, What was the conception which they had formed of the Messiah, when they came to know Jesus? And the Book of Acts answers us, that the Messiah, in their view, was to be the offspring and successor of David, a Prophet like to Moses, the Servant of Jehovah, the Son of God and the Son of Man. The three first of these characterizations describe His dignity, while the two last raise the question for us what nature was ascribed to Him.” Again, pp. 55-56: “Diverse as were the ideas expressed in these three views of a King like David, a Prophet like Moses, and the Servant of Jehovah, and little as the particulars in which they were developed permitted themselves to be united into a unitary, consistent, concrete conception, yet since the Messiah was seen in all three, they were looked upon as identical. Accordingly what was said of one of them was considered unhesitatingly to be applicable to the others. A striking example of this is afforded by the words applied to Jesus in Mt 17⁵— This is my Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye Him.” Here the predicate, my Son,” belongs to the idea of the King of Ps 2; the in whom I am well pleased is a trait only of the portrait of the Servant of Jehovah (Is 42¹); and the hear Him points to what is due to the prophet (Deut 18¹⁵). We meet with a like phenomenon in Acts. It is declared that what stands written in Ps 2² of the King— The Kings of the earth set themselves and the princes take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed ‘—is fulfilled in God’s holy Servant (Acts 4²⁵-2⁷, cf. verse 30). Similarly the idea of the prophet is brought into connection with that of the Servant of Jeho“vah when Peter, after adducing the words, ‘ A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up,” announces that God has actually sent him to them, having raised up to you His servant Jesus’ (Acts 3²⁴⁻²⁶). And if the splendid successor of David received the glory, which the Holy One of God expected (Acts 22⁷,³⁰) so also the sufferings of the Servant of Jehovah were unhesitatingly assigned to the King (3¹⁸), as Peter declares that God through all His prophets has proclaimed that His Christ should suffer.”” ↩

9. Cf. Blom, op. cit., p. 33: “Whatever weight can be attached here to the appeal to this anointing of Jesus with the Holy Spirit of prophecy and with power, as a proof that He must be the Messiah, there was yet another side to the manifestation of Jesus which strongly impressed the Christians and by which they were led to recognize His religious greatness. He was the ὅσιος (Acts 22⁷ 13³⁵), the δίκαιος (7⁵² 22¹⁴, the ἅγιος xal δίκαιος (3¹⁴), the ἅγιος παῖς tod θεοῦ (43730). And this He was not only after His exaltation, but already on earth, for the guilt of the Jews was so great just because they had rejected and killed Him, the ἅγιος xal δίκαιος, instead of a murderer. These general predicates, however, are not enough to give us a just notion of the perfection which they saw in Jesus. It is undoubtedly wrong for men to see nothing more in them than that He was guiltless in the matters of which He was accused by the Jews. This is already plain from the emphasis with which He is named ἅγιος, ↩

10. Cf. Blom, op. cit., pp. 50-57: “Although they [the Jews] applied these words to a particular person, they do not seem to have all thought of the same one; and while some held him of whom Moses wrote in the law (Jno 1⁴⁵) or the prophet who should come into the world (6¹⁴, cf. ¹⁵) for the Messiah, others must have distinguished Him from the Messiah (1²¹. cf. 20, 40. cf 4¹) According to these last, he was, in harmony with the prophecy of Malachi (3¹ 4⁵⁻⁶), the returning Elijah, who was to prepare the way before the Messiah (Mt 17¹⁰). The Christians did not share this view. While they also had expected an Elijah and had found him in John the Baptist (Acts 13²⁴), they conceived that the promise of Moses had found its fulfilment only in the Messiah; and Peter, therefore, in his preaching, appealed directly to these words (Acts 3²²), and Stephen also seems to have meant the same thing (7³⁷). Accordingly on their basis the gift of prophecy was a main element of the idea of the Messiah, and that, such a gift as placed Him by the side of Moses and elevated Him above all other prophets. There was certainly connected with this also an inner communion with God; and God was understood to speak with Him face to face, and to reveal to Him His counsel more clearly as in the case of Moses (Ex 33¹¹, Numb 12⁶⁻⁸).” ↩

11. Cf. 2²⁷, In both cases it is derived from Ps 16¹⁰, and the term employed is ὅσιος, not ἅγιος, as in 3¹⁴, cf. Mk 1²⁴, Lk 43⁴, Jno 6⁶⁹, 1 Jno 2²⁰0 Rev 3⁷. See on the titles of this sort Hastings’ D. C. G., L Pp 730-31. ↩

12. Cf. Stanton, op. cit., p. 170. ↩

13. The variant reading, “the blood of the Lord,” means the same thing. But Dr. Hort justly says, “rod θεοῦ is assuredly genuine.” See for a discussion of the reading, Westcott and Hort, The New Testa ment in the Original Greek, 11. pp. 98-99. ↩

14. Only in citations from the O. T. (2²¹ 15¹⁴,¹⁷) does “the Name of God “appear in Acts. On the other hand the phrase “the Name of Jesus Christ” is quite frequent: 2³⁸ 3⁶,¹⁶) 4¹⁰,¹⁸,³⁰ 4⁴⁰ 8¹²,¹⁶ ¹⁴,¹⁵ 91627 10⁴³,⁴⁸ 1526 1618 195.1317 2113 2516 26⁹, Instances like 4⁷,¹²17 5²8 9²¹, where “the Name” or “this Name” is used more absolutely, are quite instructive from the point of view of the significance of the term. Only at 5⁴¹ is the completely absolute use of it found. ↩

15. Cf. Meyer on s5⁴¹: “The absolute 6 ὄνομα denotes the mame κατ, éSoyryv,—namely Jesus Messiah (3⁶ 4¹⁰)—the confession and announcement of which was always the highest and holiest concern of the apostles. Analogous is the use of the absolute DY (Lev 24¹¹,¹⁶.), in which the Hebrew understood the name of his Jehovah as implied of itself. Cf. 3 Jno 7.” Cf. on the general question Giesebrecht, Die alttest. Schitzung des Gottesnamens, p. 1901; G. B. Gray, B. D., 11. p- 480, and also Conybeare, J. Q. R., ix. p. 66, and Chase, J. T.., January, 1907. ↩

16. That the Name was simply “Jesus” is thought by Hackett and Barde: that it was “Christ,” by De Wette and Gloag: that it was “the Lord Jesus Christ” is Blass’ view; and that it was “the Messiah Jesus” is Wendt’s, as it was Meyer’. ↩

17. Rashdall, iz loc. ↩